THE Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, MONDAY, 23rd JANUARY, 1865. SEPARATION.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume V, Issue 217, 23 January 1865, Page 2

THE Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, MONDAY, 23rd JANUARY, 1865. SEPARATION.

A seuioxjs consideration of the colonial policy pursued of late by the Imperial Government should, we imagine, he sufficient to convince the agitators of Auckland of the hopelessness of their design. Wo have refrained from more than a mere allusion to the matter up to this time, believing that the agitation was merely the ehulition of excited feeling on the part of its promoters, and that a few days or weeks would see this pass away, and the removal of the Government come to bo regarded by the citizens of Auckland as no more than one of the inevitable occurrences that are beyond the control of those who suffer from them, and to be borne with all the calm philosophy usually exercised in such cases. But we do not find this to be the case, for the Auckland citizens still continue to chafe and fret under what seems to them to be the deprivation of a right or vested interest. As their city has lost the position of capital of the colony, they are desirous, of loosing its connection with the other parts altogether. And yet it is clear that sometimes a perception of the unlikelihood of success will, in defiance of their unwillingness to believe it,

force itself on their minds, which leads them to, if possible, a still wilder scheme than even the separation of Auckland from the rest of the colony. The failure of the separation agitation in the south of the colony, which at one time had a promising appearance, is one of the causes of this effect; for their eyes cannot be closed to' the fact that" the 'Auckland movement does not, and cannot, present a more plausible or promising aspect than did the sister movement in Otago. A consideration of a truth so patent leads the leaders of the Auckland movement to discuss the causes of that failure, and the conclusion they arrive at is that it was because it was a mere local movement, and failed to excite either sympathy or support beyond the limits of that portion of the colony where it originated. Now, this is precisely the position of the Auckland scheme, and the remedy proposed is to make it a general movement, by extending the separation idea from that of Auckland only from the rest of the colony to that of the separation of the two islands. If this extension be made, they calculate on securing the support of the late Southern party, and appear to fancy that they will be more likely to succeed. This is the wilder scheme that we have alluded to. Are there no voices in the colony but those raised, and to be raised, in the extreme North and South ? Are there no parties sufficiently interested in a political change of such importance, other than these ? Or is Nelson and its neighbors to he governed from a still worse position than before? or Taranaki, Wanganui,Wellington, and Napier to be separated from the South and adjoined to Auckland, with Auckland for the seat of Government, and under the dictatorship of a Governor in 'whom they do not place confidence ; and is all this to be done—we will not say without consulting the parties concerned—but without their consent or against their will? Such ideas, we think, does well deserve the epithets of wild, extravagant, and bsurd.

Tlie Province of Taranaki, the nearest neighbor of Auckland, lias been the first to take something of alarm at the proceedings of the separation party in Auckland, that is, just enough to prompt them to call a publ c meeting on the subject, which, however, seems to have been more for the consideration of the question whether there was any danger to be feared from it than from any fear of danger. The resolutions passed at that meeting (which we append) shows that it came to the conclusion that the existence ot the movement was a source of regret, but no cause of alarm—a conclusion with which we cordially agree, and hope that ere long we shall cease to hear anything more of a scheme so visionary as that of the political separation of New Zealand. The following are the resolutions referred to:— 1. “ That this meeting hears with great regret that efforts are being made by a oortion of tlie people of Auckland to induce Her Majesty the Queen to divide this Colony into two, apd to take away all or part of the free institutions from the Northern Colony so made, and to convert it practically into a Crown Colony, the Government of which, in all important matters, is to be placed altogether beyond the control of the colonists. 2. “lhat this meeting—though it views such efforts as above-mentioned with extreme regret, as tending to bring the Colony of New Zealand into contempt in the eyes of the English Government and people—is of opinion that no further ac: ion in the matter need be taken by the people of Taranaki, inasmuch as the proposal made to the Imperial Government in the name of Auckland is in itself so obviouslv unwise and impracticable. and so opposed to the whole tendency of the present colonial policy of England as to ensure its rejection.

3. “ That the Chairman he requested to sign these resolutions on behalf of the meeting, and to forward them to His Excellency the Gorernor for transmission to Her Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for (he Colonics.”